The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1887-01-01
DIR. MANLEY's SETTLEMENT OF
THE QUESTION"

on the questions previously raised by
me, or that intended to slight him;
neither of which am willing to admit.
That his Quarterly article was especially
designed as a criticism of one published
by me several years before, in exposi-
ton of the same text, is obvious from
the fact that the last half of his article
is devoted, in order, to the same posi-
tions which had been successfully raised
by me long before.
Now, it is far from me to wish to dis
turb old and settled expositions among
us of controverted texts of Scripture,
except for grave reasons, which should
appeal alike to all our writer's. But it
has always seemed to me, that our
scholars owed it to Universalism, in
their expositions of controverted texts,
not only to convince themselves, but to
aim to convince scholars outside our
order, even to the better class Of exc
getes of our day. To do this, it has
seemed 70 me a duty, not to be satisfied
with any exposition of a controverted
text which could not be fairly defended
on the basis of the Greek text of Scrip
ture, especially as the Greek Testament
is to-day adopted among scholars as the
usual standard and basis of exegesis.
We speak here of the New Testament.
Formerly, expositors were won't to
amend, alter or patch up the Greek
text, as best suited their preconceived
interpretations. But Winer, in his
grammar, gave them such trimming
for this practice, that in our day the
writer who presumes to tamper with
the Greek text, in the interest of bis
expositions, reads himself at once out
of the ranks of all first class exegetes.
1t appears to me clearly our duty, then,
to abandon all such expositions of de-
batable texts, as cannot be sustained
fairly and squarely without an attempt
to impeach the integrity Of the Greek
text, or to set aside the established
principles of the Greek language.
The spirit, now, in which, some years
since, 1 wrote the article of which DR..
Manley's July paper was intended as
a reply, will be better appreciated when
it is stated that among those who have
labored at length to refute my main
positions as heretofore put forth, nearly
all have found it necessary to assume
some alteration of the Greek text of the
passage in debate, in order to clear their
own expositions of fatal objections.
DR.. Manley, in his Settlement of the
Question" does not hesitate to take
this course. On the words Tvs. 81: sit
is appointed unto men once (hopd1) to
die," he remarks: sit is highly probable
that once is elliptical for once year"
What is the ground of this probability?
Simply the necessity for DIR. Manley's
exposition of the text; the necessity for
his Settlement of the Question" He
very well knows that if he cannot make
the text in some way read "onee year"
(Gk. hapaG tou eaiaaaou), instead of
once (hapar alone), his exegesis Of the
text becomes an utter failure. Does
Dr.. Manley attempt the slightest proof,
derived from Greek grammar or Lexi-
con, that hapoT, ''once," is elliptical
here. He knows that there exists no
such proof, nor shadow of a proof.
Zone thing is certain" says the Doctor,
"that the men appointed (once) to die,
were the high priests, and that they
died typical death once a year. But
why the author used once, instead of
once year, we confess our inability to
explain" Up. 1927 Yet, if hdpar is
used here elliptically, as just assumed,
for hapor tou ensautou, as in VS.. 7, no
explanation is needed. The mystery
here presented, however, is not in the
authors blind Greek, in using hapor
elliptically, when he does not so use it,
but in DR.. Manley's exegesis. He will
have it, that 1.-The men appointed once
to de-" really died typically "once a
year." Hence his inability to explain,
etc. But we cannot allow our brother
to go fast and loose in any such way.
He must consent to abide by the Greek
text, as the standard and test of his exc
gesis, or, failing to establish it on this
basis, simply abandon it. For no criti-
cal edition, no manuscript of the Greek
text, affords any serious doubt of its
entire accuracy.
But DR.. Manley overturns the Greek
text, and all critical editions and manu-
scripts of it, by what he terms ''fixed
fact" Up. 912); that is to say, his "Set-
Element of the Question" Our brother
has a very easy way of settling things.
For instance, his Settlement of the
Question:" is simply misstatement of
it. He misquotes the text Thus Up.
BIZ, he says, referring to Oh. K, 1: 1.-The
sacrifices here mentioned were such as
were offered year by year; and these
were offered only by the high priests,
and at the annual atonement. The pro-
noun they, in the clause they offered
stands for the high priests, and has for